Identity Theft Arrest and Case Processing Data: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

Transcription

1 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona Identity Theft Arrest and Case Processing Data: An Analysis of the Information in Arizona s Computerized Criminal History Record System March 23

2 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson DANIEL G. SHARP, Chief Oro Valley Police Department Vice-Chairperson BILL MONTGOMERY Maricopa Attorney JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa Sheriff TIMOTHY J. DORN, Chief Gilbert Police Department ROBERT C. HALLIDAY, Director Department of Public Safety BARBARA LAWALL Pima Attorney DAVID SANDERS Pima Chief Probation Officer VACANT Supervisor JOSEPH R. BRUGMAN, Chief Coolidge Police Department CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima Sheriff JESSE HERNANDEZ, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency SHEILA POLK Yavapai Attorney STEVEN SHELDON Former Judge VACANT Sheriff DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts CHRIS GIBBS, Mayor City of Safford TOM HORNE Attorney General CHARLES RYAN, Director Department of Corrections MARK SPENCER Law Enforcement Leader MATTHEW BILESKI, M.A. Statistical Analysis Center Research Analyst JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director PHILLIP STEVENSON, Ph.D. Statistical Analysis Center Director

3 Identity Theft Arrest and Case Processing Data: An Analysis of the Information in Arizona s Computerized Criminal History Record System Prepared by Matthew Bileski, M.A. Research Analyst Phillip Stevenson, Ph.D. Statistical Analysis Center Director The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and the authors of this report would like to thank the Arizona Department of Public Safety and staff in their Criminal History Record Section for providing the data needed to complete this project. This project was supported by Grant #2-BJ-CX-K8 awarded to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Points of view or opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Suggested citation: Bileski, Matthew and Phillip Stevenson. (23). Identity Theft Arrest and Case Processing Data: An Analysis of the Information in Arizona s Computerized Criminal History Record System. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary... Introduction... 2 State Criminal History Record Repositories... 2 Criminal History Record Repository in Arizona... 3 Collection of Criminal History Records in Arizona... 3 Completeness of Data from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History... 4 Identity Theft Statutes in Arizona... 4 Arizona Revised Statute (Repealed on July 8, 2)... 5 Arizona Revised Statute Arizona Revised Statute Arizona Revised Statute Research Related to Identity Theft... 6 Identity Theft Arrest and Disposition Data in the ACCH Record System... 7 Identity Theft Arrests and Subsequent Disposition Data... 7 Aggravated Identity Theft Arrests and Subsequent Disposition Data... Identity Trafficking Arrests and Subsequent Disposition Data...4 Other Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Theft-Related Dispositions...6 Identity Theft-Related Arrest Totals and Rates by...8 Identity Theft-Related Conviction Totals and Rates by...2 Rates for Arizona Revised Statute Identity Theft versus Theft Offenses...22 Sentencing for Identity Theft-Related Convictions...24 Demographics of Individuals Arrested for Identity Theft-related Offenses in Arizona...27 Demographics of Individuals Convicted for Identity Theft-related Offenses...3 Identity Theft-Related Arrests and Convictions and Other Fraud Offense Types...33 Arrest and Subsequent Disposition Data for Excluded A.R.S Arrest Charges...35 Discussion of the Findings...37 Conclusion...39 References...4 Appendix...42 Identity Theft Resources...43 A.R.S Taking identity of another person or entity; knowingly accepting identity of another person; classification...44 A.R.S Aggravated taking identity of another person or entity; classification...44 A.R.S Trafficking in the identity of another person or entity; classification...45 Appendix Table. List of Other Fraud Statutes Identified for Inclusion in the Research by Fraud Type...46

5 Executive Summary Over the years, the criminal justice system in Arizona has come to rely upon the information that the criminal history record repository, specifically the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) record system, contains for criminal background checks, for employment qualifications, and for firearms purchases. The ACCH records, housed at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS), provide arrest and subsequent case disposition information (i.e., charges filed, convictions, sentences, etc.) for all felony, sexual, driving under the influence, and domestic violence-related offenses that take place throughout Arizona. Criminal history records are also a valuable resource for research within the criminal justice system. Researchers at the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission used a repository extract provided by AZDPS to assess the identity theftrelated (i.e., identity theft, aggravated identity theft, and identity trafficking) offenses present in the ACCH repository. The following report presents the findings of the identity theft research carried out by SAC researchers. Data is also provided regarding the completeness of records within the repository, specifically the percentage of arrest charges with subsequent case disposition information present in the repository by January 2. The following are some of the key findings within the report: All three identity theft-related offenses- identity theft, aggravated identity theft, and identity trafficking- increased substantially in the total number of arrests and arrest charges over the reporting period. Identity theft arrest charges increased by percent from FY 2 to FY 2. Since both offenses did not debut in the Arizona Revised Statutes until FY 26, aggravated identity theft and identity trafficking arrest charges increased by 3.8 and 45. percent, respectively, from FY 26 to FY 2. From FY 2 to FY 2, 37.2 percent of identity theft-related arrest charges in the ACCH were missing case disposition information. With the exception of complex cases, FY 2 arrest charges had the maximum 8 days for disposition processing in the AZDPS data extract, as outlined by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 8.2.a.(2). Over the ten-year period, the percentage of identity theft-related arrest charges leading to an identity theft-related conviction ranged between.8 and 2.6 percent. More probation sentences were assigned to identity theft convictions than any other sentence type. For aggravated identity theft and identity trafficking, convictions were given prison sentences more than any other sentence. Identity trafficking convictions led to a prison or jail sentence 8 percent of the time or greater, followed by aggravated identity theft at greater than 75 percent, and identity theft at more than 5 percent from FY 2 to FY 2. Offenders arrested for or convicted of identity theft-related charges were likely to be white males between the ages of 25 and 34.

6 Introduction The primary purpose of criminal history record systems is to maintain a record of individuals arrested and processed through a state s criminal justice system. Although the information entered into criminal history record systems may vary from state to state, a core set of information is included in every state s criminal history record system including, the offense(s) for which an alleged offender was arrested and related criminal justice system activity. The information contained in criminal history records systems is used for a variety of justice system purposes. Law enforcement agencies use the information to make arrest and custody decisions, prosecutors and judges make charging and sentencing decisions, in part based upon criminal history record information, and probation and correction agencies use criminal history information as part of risk assessments for individuals under their supervision. Additionally, public and private sector organizations routinely use criminal history record information as part of background checks that are conditions of employment. Although researchers routinely use criminal history record information to assess recidivism rates of convicted offenders, criminal history record information can be used for other research purposes. For example, in Arizona, criminal history record information is used to assess the reporting and subsequent criminal justice system processing of sexual assault arrests in Arizona (e.g., Bileski and Stevenson, 2; Bileski and Stevenson, 2). Other uses of Arizona s criminal history record information include an assessment of a state grant program s ability to reduce case processing times (Bileski and Stevenson, 22), an analysis of felony case processing in Arizona (Bileski, 2), and an assessment of the timeliness and completeness of criminal history record information (Bileski, 2).This report continues to take advantage of the research utility of criminal history record information by using this information to better understand the reporting of identity theft arrests in Arizona and subsequent criminal justice system activity. A ten-year extract from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) record system was provided to the SAC by the AZDPS. This extract includes all arrests that occurred and were submitted to ACCH from January, 2 to December 3, 2. For this project, all criminal history record information included in the extract that is connected to identity theft arrests that occurred from July, 2 to June 3, 2 is used to better understand the nature and extent of identity theft arrests and subsequent criminal justice system activity as they appear in Arizona s criminal history record system (i.e., ACCH). In addition to better understanding the reporting and processing of identity theft in Arizona, this project also investigates the quality (i.e., timeliness and completeness) of identity theft criminal history record information. State Criminal History Record Repositories States across the country have established central state repositories of criminal history information that provide a wealth of benefits to both criminal justice agencies and non-criminal justice entities alike. Each central state repository stores historical information from all facets of June 3, 2 is used as the end date, rather than December 3, 2, for the analysis of identity theft arrest information to allow up to 8 days for subsequent case processing. According to Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure established by the Arizona Supreme Court, courts are expected to fully process most felony cases within 8 days of arraignment. 2

7 the criminal justice system including, but not limited to, arrest event information, disposition information (e.g., prosecution and court case decisions), and sentencing results. Data from the repositories are supplied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation s Interstate Identification Index (FBI III) as well as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Despite the unified effort among states to collect criminal history record information, states have institutionalized unique infrastructures for maintaining the records and have employed varying processes for the collection of data. Criminal History Record Repository in Arizona In compliance with Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 4-75, criminal justice agencies across the state of Arizona are required to submit arrest and associated case disposition information to the state criminal history record repository, known as the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) system. Arizona statute mandates that all felony offenses, sexual offenses, driving under the influence (DUI) offenses, and offenses involving domestic violence be submitted to the ACCH repository. In Arizona, the AZDPS is responsible for the collection and maintenance of the information submitted to the ACCH by all agencies across the state. The information housed within the ACCH assists law enforcement agencies in identifying an offender and the offender s criminal history, and the ACCH repository strengthens the decision-making of court and correctional agencies regarding the risk assessment of an offender. Also, public and private institutions utilize the ACCH records to run background checks for employment purposes and for regulating firearms purchases. Collection of Criminal History Records in Arizona All criminal history records within the ACCH are fingerprint-based, which are collected at the time of arrest booking. Once the alleged offender is fingerprinted electronically or through manual ink and roll, the arresting agency is required to send the fingerprint card along with relevant arrest information (i.e. personally-identifiable offender data, offense code data, arrest date, etc.) to the AZDPS within days of the arrest booking date. 2 Each record within the ACCH consists of a single arrest charge and follows the unique arrest count through the entire case disposition process. After an alleged offender is arrested, a disposition report is created with each arrest count listed separately on the form. This form follows the entire case from law enforcement to the prosecutor and the court (if applicable). Upon reaching a final case disposition including any applicable sentencing decisions, the form must be forwarded to the AZDPS within 4 days of the date of disposition completion. 3 In order for subsequent case disposition information to be attached to its associated arrest count record(s) in the ACCH, the arrest count record must be present in the ACCH prior to the submission of the disposition form. All charges on the disposition form with arrest charges present in the ACCH are linked to the associated record and entered into the ACCH. However, any disposition charges with missing arrest charge records are not processed and the disposition form is returned to the originating agency for correction and resubmission. 2 A.R.S U.3 3 A.R.S U.7 and A.R.S U.8 3

8 Completeness of Data from the Arizona Computerized Criminal History The completeness of arrest and subsequent case disposition data in the ACCH continues to be a concern among criminal justice stakeholders in Arizona. According to the data in the latest ACCH extract received by the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) from AZDPS, 65.7 percent of arrest counts resulting from arrests made in calendar year 29 had associated case disposition data attached to the record by the end of calendar year 2 (Bileski, 2). The percentage of 23 arrest counts (entered in the ACCH by the end of 24) with associated case disposition information in the ACCH by the end of 24 was 59.4 percent. Despite an increase over the seven-year period, there is still a large percentage of arrest counts entered each year that have not completed the case disposition process within the 8-day timeframe as outlined by the Arizona Supreme Court. 4 One of the identified challenges to a complete, accurate, and timely criminal history record system is Arizona s cite and release arrest process. Many Arizona law enforcement agencies are faced with the task of patrolling a vast rural landscape within each of Arizona s 5 counties. As a result, many agencies are citing and releasing the arrestee in lieu of transporting the arrestee to a booking location. When a law enforcement officer issues an arrest citation and releases the arrestee, the arrestee is not fingerprinted, and the creation of a record of the arrest in the ACCH is delayed. Upon arrival in the court, the judge is required to confirm that the arrestee has been fingerprinted. If the arrestee was cited for an offense that, by statute, requires fingerprinting of the alleged offender and has not yet been fingerprinted, the judge requires the cited defendant to get fingerprinted. The cite and release process eliminates the time-intensive formal booking process at the time of arrest, thus maintaining officers presence on the streets and in Arizona s communities. To better understand the impact of the cite and release process on the quality of criminal history record information, research was conducted on a sample of five arresting agencies in Arizona, and it was discovered that only 4 percent of citation and long-form complaint arrest counts for DUI, sexual offenses, and aggravated domestic violence offenses matched to arrest counts in the ACCH repository (Bileski, 27). In an effort to increase the percentage of citation arrest counts present in the ACCH, new legislation was enacted on January, 2 which requires law enforcement officials to provide a mandatory fingerprint form to arrestees for all felony, DUI, sexual, and domestic violence cite and release offenses. The fingerprint form directs the individual to a booking station where fingerprints will be taken prior to the individual s first court appearance. Failure to complete the form indicates to the judge that the defendant has not been booked for the citation offense(s). Identity Theft Statutes in Arizona In light of the complications with defining the parameters of identity theft, laws and statutes are continuously evolving to adequately represent the issue of crimes related to identity theft. The following state statutes currently, or have in the past, identify and define identity theft as a crime within the state of Arizona. The following statutes are available in their entirety in the Appendix Section, with the exception of repealed A.R.S Arizona Supreme Court Rule 8.2.a.(2) 4

9 Arizona Revised Statute (Repealed on July 8, 2) Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 3-278, titled Taking Identity of Another Person, was enacted into law on July 2, 996. The statute was the first to specifically address identity theft as a crime, and the statute simply identified name, birth date or social security number as the qualifying agents for identity theft. The statute defined identity theft as the taking of the previously stated information without the individual s consent, with the intention to commit illegal acts using the information, and/or to create a financial burden on the individual. The described action was a class five felony according to the statute. Arizona Revised Statute 3-28 Effective on July 8, 2, A.R.S was renumbered to A.R.S. 3-28, currently titled Taking Identity of another Person or Entity. As a result of the transition and subsequent amendments to the statute, the legislation was changed to include personal identifying information, and subsections were added that detail the following: accepting and using stolen identity information for the purposes of employing an individual (effective May, 28), requiring peace officers to take a formal report of any complaints linked to an identity theft violation, allowing prosecutors to file multiple charges for identity theft if the additional charges occurred within the same county or the entire state, and excluding the sale or purchase of alcohol to a minor as an identity theft offense. According to a 28 amendment, identity theft was changed to a class four felony offense. As of July 8, 2, A.R.S ceased to exist as a criminal statute. Despite the fact that the statute remains repealed, it continued to be used leading ACJC researchers to exclude any A.R.S arrest charges resulting from identity theft offenses that occurred after July 8, 2. The subsequent disposition data for these charges are also excluded with the exception of the identity theft conviction data in the sentencing section (Table 2), convicted offender demographics section (Table 8), and the convictions linked to other fraud types section (Table 22). A separate section addresses these additional cases as potential identity theft arrest counts. Arizona Revised Statute 3-29 A.R.S. 3-29, known as Aggravated Taking Identity of another Person or Entity, was introduced on August 2, 25. Prior to this date, the statute was designated for admission ticket fraud. Originally written to apply to a person that knowingly takes, purchases, manufactures, records, possesses or uses five or more identities or causes $3, or more in damages, A.R.S was amended in 27 and applies to incidents involving three or more identities again with $3, or more in monetary damages. In addition, paragraph three of subsection A was added as an aggravated identity theft charge for offenders using another s personal identifying information with the intent to obtain employment. These latest amendments took effect on September 9, 27. Like with A.R.S. 3-28, offenses involving the sale or purchase of liquor to a minor are not eligible for aggravated identity theft. All aggravated identity theft offenses are class three felony offenses. 5

10 Nine arrest counts for A.R.S have offense dates prior to the August 2, 25 transition date. This is particularly speculative because admission ticket fraud was renumbered to A.R.S. 3-2, meaning that any prior admission ticket fraud offense would require an arrest charge of A.R.S Further investigation uncovered that four of these charges were for A.R.S A.3, which was a code that did not exist under the original ticket fraud statute. Also, four charges were subsequently disposed in court as A.R.S charges at a later date, which would be strongly discouraged if the offense were an A.R.S. 3-2 admission ticket fraud offense. Therefore, A.R.S arrest charges with an offense date that preceded the introduction of aggravated identity theft to the statutes on August 2, 25 was included in the analysis as an aggravated identity theft arrest charge. Arizona Revised Statute 3-2 Another recent addition to the Arizona statutes is A.R.S. 3-2, titled Trafficking in the Identity of another Person or Entity. Created on August 2, 25, the statute seeks to penalize an individual who knowingly sells, transfers, or transmits the personal information of another person or entity regardless of any actual loss for unlawful action or to acquire employment. The employment piece was an amendment to the original statute language in 28. Again, A.R.S. 3-2 excludes all offenses involving the sale or purchase of liquor to a minor. Identity trafficking is a class two felony offense. Research Related to Identity Theft Identity theft is a relative newcomer among the list of Arizona statute offenses, as identified in the previous section. Unlike some more conventional theft categories, identity theft continues to adapt as technology (i.e. computers, bank/credit account access, electronic records, etc.) and personally identifiable information (i.e. social security numbers, passwords, account numbers, etc.) evolve to meet the needs of society. The following addresses current research as it pertains to identity theft and the complications the offense poses for today s society. There is little question as to the motivation of an identity theft offender. The latest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that the direct financial loss among households with victims experiencing identity theft in 2 reached more than $3.2 billion (Langton, 2). Besides financial gain, a number of identity thieves use another s identity to avoid detection by law enforcement, to skirt around criminal justice sanctions (i.e. warrants, child support payments), and to obtain employment (Identity Theft Resource Center, 23). Due to the unconventional nature of the offense, identity theft often negates the necessity of the offender to come in direct physical contact with the potential victim. After all, the identity thief is simply using an individual s personally-identifiable or financially-identifiable information (i.e. social security number, account number, mother s maiden name, etc.). Although some identity thieves will acquire such information by confronting the victim via robbery or larceny, there are various methods that identity thieves employ to avoid confrontation with the victim altogether. According to the latest National Crime Victimization Survey data, almost 3 percent of victims reporting identity theft identified a purchase or other transaction as the point at which their identity was compromised, followed by a stolen or lost wallet (2 percent), compromised office files (4 percent), and unauthorized access by family or friends (8 percent) 6

11 (Langton and Planty, 2). With the exception of stolen wallets, the other methods of obtaining personally and financially-identifiable information establish a heightened level of deception and may also provide the offender with the added security that the victim does not suspect any breach of information at the time the theft occurred. Identity thieves are also utilizing computers and the internet to virtually obtain personally and financially-identifiable information. According to Chawki and Wahab (26), case studies show that offenders are hacking into database servers and other internet sources to obtain information. In one case, an individual obtained transaction information for more than.4 million purchases made at a common chain shoe store. The authors list cyber-trespass, phony or sham websites and phishing and pharming, spoofing, spyware, electronic bulletin boards, information brokers, internet public records, and malicious applications as some of the most prevalent methods for identity thieves to obtain information online. As virtual storage and electronic sharing of personally-identifiable information becomes more inevitable, inadequate security measures combined with lack of oversight will only continue to motivate identity thieves to take full advantage of the virtual targets that exist over the internet. The ACCH data available to SAC researchers is capable of providing an exploratory view into the possible deterrent effect that law enforcement and criminal justice sanctions have on identity theft offending. The Federal Trade Commission (26-2) identified Arizona as a state with one of the highest identity theft complaint rates (per, residents) over the previous five years, and the number of complaints reached a high of 9,683 in 28 before falling dramatically to 6,549 by 2. The following information will show how the Arizona criminal justice system has responded to such an identity theft presence in Arizona. Identity Theft Arrest and Disposition Data in the ACCH Record System The following data has been compiled from an ACCH database extract provided to SAC staff by the AZDPS in January 2. Arrest and subsequent case disposition information is broken down into the three Arizona identity theft-related statute offenses: identity theft, aggravated identity theft, and identity trafficking. Despite marked improvement in the completeness of our state s criminal history records, the records repository is well short of percent completeness of disposition information per arrest charge. Also important to mention is that the data has not been standardized to account for any missing information across the fiscal years. For instance, arrest charges recorded in FY 2 had more than nine years for final disposition entry while arrest charges from FY 2 were given up to one and a half years for subsequent disposition entry. Although each arrest charge has been given at least 8 days for disposition entry to the ACCH, which is the standard for completing a case as established by the Arizona Supreme Court, one must take into consideration that later fiscal year arrest records are given less time for disposition completion. Identity Theft Arrests and Subsequent Disposition Data The data in this section detail the arrests and arrest charges specifically for identity theft (only A.R.S and A.R.S offenses). Subsequent disposition findings for the identity theft offenses are also provided, and the disposition tables are separated by the offense charge 7

12 at the time of disposition (i.e., identity theft, aggravated identity theft, identity trafficking, or non-identity theft related). According to the data available in the ACCH, the number of identity theft arrest charges submitted by law enforcement agencies across the state has increased by more than 45 percent from FY 2 to FY 2 (Table ). In FY 2, a total of 36 arrests involving at least one identity theft arrest charge (includes A.R.S and some A.R.S charges) resulted in a total of 342 identity theft arrest charges. These numbers swelled to a ten-year high of,67 arrests and 2,289 total identity theft arrest charges in FY 28. By FY 2, these totals fell to,25 arrests with at least one identity theft arrest charge resulting in,9 total identity theft arrest charges. Table. Identity Theft Arrest and Arrest Charge Data* in ACCH FY Arrests including Identity Theft ,63,4,54,67,463,25 Identity Theft Arrest Charges ,76,542 2,7,959 2,289 2,92,9 Identity Theft Arrest Charges With No Final Disposition Data in the ACCH ,93 Percentage of Identity Theft Arrest Charges With No Final Disposition Data in the ACCH 32.2% 32.8% 36.% 38.3% 35.5% 36.7% 32.5% 27.% 37.6% 57.5% * As of July 8, 2, the Arizona Revised Statute was amended and renumbered to the current identity theft statute, A number of arrests and arrest charges are included in Table totals resulting from offenses that occurred prior to the July 8 th statute change. Table also shows the total number and percentage of identity theft arrest charges that do not have final disposition data in the ACCH as of January 2. The percentage of arrest charges missing disposition data fell from 32.2 percent in FY 2 to 27. percent in FY 28, and then the percentage increased to 57.5 percent by FY 2. The increases in FY 29 and FY 2 are likely a result of the limited number of days to process cases compared to prior fiscal years. As the total number of identity theft arrest charges has increased over the ten-year period, the same has occurred for the number of identity theft charges that were court dismissed, were not filed or deferred by the prosecution, were not referred by law enforcement, were pled to other charges, and were convicted. Charges dismissed by the courts increased by 278 percent from FY 2 to FY 2 and no filings by prosecutors increased 3 percent, however, dismissals fell from 23.4 percent of all identity theft charges in FY 2 to 5.9 percent in FY 2 (Table 2a). Charges not filed experienced a similar decrease in the percentage of total identity theft arrest charges. Charges not referred to prosecutors by law enforcement rose in both total and percentage from.8 percent of arrest charges in FY 2 to 9.6 percent of charges in FY 28 before decreasing dramatically to only seven total charges and.4 percent of total arrest charges by FY 2. Arrest charges leading to pleas to other charges rose in total but remained rather consistent in the percentage of total arrest charges for identity theft. Only a handful of identity theft arrest charges led to acquitted/not guilty findings and cases deferred by the prosecution. 8

13 Table 2a. Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Theft Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Total Identity Theft Arrest Charges ,76,542 2,7,959 2,289 2,92,9 Dismissed by the Court Not Filed for Prosecution Not Referred to Prosecutors Acquitted/Found Not Guilty Plea to Other Charges Deferred by the Prosecution % % 6.8%.3% % % 2.4% % % 7.8% % % 4.2% 4.3% % % Conviction (includes nolo contendere pleas and charges affirmed in appellate court) % 2.% 22 3.% 53 3.% 47 3.% 3.2% % % % 3.4% 3.% 3.% 2.% 38 8.% % % %.% 6.3% % 48 2.% % % 7.3% 273.9% * A number of identity theft arrest charges led to other disposition charges or were missing disposition information. Thus, the percentages in Table 2a do not make up percent of the total number of identity theft arrest charges % % % 2.% 7.3% 29.5% % 29.% 7.4% 4.2%.% % The total number of identity theft arrest charges that resulted in identity theft convictions increased 39 percent from FY 2 to FY 2 despite the steady reduction in the total after FY 26 (Table 2a). The percentage of arrest charges leading to an identity theft conviction rose to a high of 2.6 percent in FY 25 before decreasing to 9.3 percent by FY 2. Table 2b. Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Aggravated Identity Theft Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Total Identity Theft Arrest Charges 2,7,959 2,289 2,92,9 Dismissed by the Court 3.%.% Conviction (includes nolo contendere pleas and charges affirmed in appellate court) 7.3% 5.3% 8.3% * Only a small number of identity theft arrest charges led to aggravated identity theft disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent. 4.2% 9

14 Only.3 percent of identity theft arrest charges with finalized disposition information led to a subsequent disposition charge for aggravated identity theft from FY 2 to FY 2. Five charges led to a court dismissal for aggravated identity theft; over half of these dismissals originated from arrests made in FY 26 (Table 2b). The total number of identity theft arrest charges that led to aggravated identity theft convictions fluctuated over the five-year period that aggravated identity theft has been an offense in Arizona s Revised Statutes. The total number of convictions decreased from seven convictions in FY 26 to four in FY 2. Less than. percent of identity theft arrest charges with available disposition information led to a final disposition charge for identity trafficking. Only one charge led to a court dismissal while five other identity theft arrest charges led to identity trafficking convictions from FY 26 to FY 2 (Table 2c). Similar to the aggravated identity theft statute, identity trafficking did not become a statutorily defined offense in Arizona until FY 26. Table 2c. Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Trafficking Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Total Identity Theft Arrest Charges 2,7,959 2,289 2,92,9 Dismissed by the Court.% Conviction (includes nolo contendere pleas and charges affirmed in appellate court) 2.% 2.% * Only a small number of identity theft arrest charges led to identity trafficking disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent. Approximately 7.6 percent of identity theft arrest charges with disposition information resulted in non-identity theft disposition charges from FY 2 to FY 2. The total number of identity theft arrest charges dismissed in court as non-identity theft disposition charges increased from one in FY 2 to eight in FY 25 before dropping back down to one in FY 2 (Table 2d). Only a handful of identity theft arrest charges were disposed as not filed, pleas to other charges, and deferred non-identity theft charges. The majority of identity theft arrest charges that led to non-identity theft disposition charges resulted in a conviction. The total number of identity theft arrest charges leading to non-identity theft conviction charges increased 92 percent over the ten-year period and the percentage of the total number of identity theft arrest charges increased from 2.9 percent to 5.4 percent over the same period.

15 Table 2d. Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Non-Identity Theft Related Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Total Identity Theft Arrest Charges ,76,542 2,7,959 2,289 2,92,9 Dismissed by the Court Not Filed for Prosecution Plea to Other Charges Deferred by the Prosecution.3% 3.4%.% 2.2% 3.3%.%.% Conviction (includes nolo contendere pleas and charges affirmed in appellate court) 2.9% % % % 8.5%.% 4 2.6% * Non-identity theft related disposition charges include the following: Arizona Revised Statutes 3-2, 3-62, 3-82, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 3-23, 3-23, 3-239, 3-244, 3-247, 3-248, 3-249, 3-256, 3-25, 3-274, 3-289, 3-28, 3-292, 3-294, 3-297, 3-32, 3-32, 3-345, 3-347, 3-348, 3-345, 3-362, 3-394, 28-38, , , , and Only some of the identity theft arrest charges led to non-identity theft related disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent. Aggravated Identity Theft Arrests and Subsequent Disposition Data 2.% % 4.2% 5 5.9% % 6 5.5% In this section, the focus turns to arrests and arrest charges for aggravated identity theft (A.R.S offenses). Exactly as in the previous section, the disposition tables provide findings separated by each disposition charge..%.% 2 5.4% Table 3. Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest and Arrest Charge Data in ACCH FY Arrests including Aggravated Identity Theft Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charge Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charge With No Final Disposition Data in the ACCH Percentage of Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges With No Final Disposition Data in the ACCH % 37.% 24.9% 32.2% 6.7% Aggravated identity theft was enacted during FY 26, and the number of arrests involving aggravated identity theft increased from 25 in FY 26 to a total of 333 in FY 2 (Table 3).

16 From these arrests, the total number of aggravated identity theft arrest charges rose by nearly 4 percent over the five-year period. The percentage of aggravated identity theft arrest counts missing subsequent disposition information in the ACCH fell from 5.8 percent in FY 26 to a low of 24.9 percent in FY 28 (Table 3). After FY 28, the percentage increased to 6.7 percent by FY 2. Again, this increase in the last two fiscal years is likely due to the FY 29 and FY 2 cases having less time to reach conclusion compared to cases from prior fiscal years. Over the five fiscal years, 88.8 percent of aggravated identity theft arrest charges with finalized disposition information resulted in a disposition charge for aggravated identity theft. The total number of aggravated identity theft arrest charges leading to aggravated identity theft disposition charges dismissed in court rose from 4 in FY 26 to 9 in FY 2 (Table 4a). The percentage of arrest charges leading to dismissed cases increased from 4.9 percent to 5.4 percent over this period. Aggravated identity theft arrest charges that were not filed increased in number, but the percentage of the total number of arrest charges fell from. percent in FY 26 to 5.9 percent in FY 2. Charges not referred by law enforcement fell in both number and the percentage of total aggravated identity theft arrest counts. Finally, only a handful of aggravated identity theft arrest charges resulted in aggravated identity theft disposition charges leading to acquittal or pleas to other charges. Table 4a. Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Aggravated Identity Theft Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges Dismissed by the Court Not Filed for Prosecution Not Referred to Prosecutors Acquitted/Found Not Guilty Plea to Other Charges Conviction 4 4.9% 28.% 9 3.3%.4% 47 7.% % 65 9.% 2.9%.3% 7 2.8% % % 2 3.6%.2% 2.3% % 98 8.% %.8%.2% 2.4% % * A number of aggravated identity theft arrest charges led to other disposition charges or were missing disposition information. Thus, the percentages in Table 4a do not make up percent of the total number of aggravated identity theft arrest charges % % 2.3%.2% % 2

17 Aggravated identity theft arrest charges leading to aggravated identity theft convictions increased from 47 in FY 26 to 3 in FY 29 before dropping to 58 by FY 2. Despite this increase in the total, the percentage of total aggravated identity theft arrest charges resulting in a conviction of the same charge decreased from 7. percent in FY 26 to 9.8 percent in FY 2. The percentage of arrest charges with a conviction reached a high of 23.9 percent in FY 29. Of all aggravated identity theft arrest charges with disposition information in the ACCH, 5. percent of these charges led to a reduced disposition charge for identity theft. A small number of these arrest charges leading to identity theft dispositions were dismissed in court or not filed by the prosecutor (Table 4b). The rest of the arrest charges led to identity theft convictions, Table 4b. Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Theft Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges Dismissed by the Court Not Filed for Prosecution Conviction 3.%.4%.4% 2.6% 7** 5.% 6 2.7% 4 2.6% * Only a small number of aggravated identity theft arrest charges led to identity theft disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent. ** One arrest charge resulted in a disposition charge for the outdated identity theft statute despite both the offense and arrest date taking place after the repealing of the old identity theft statute..2% 6 2.7% with the total number increasing from one in FY 26 to 6 in FY 2. The percentage of all aggravated identity theft arrest charges leading to identity theft convictions ranged from a low of.4 percent in FY 26 to a high of 5. percent in FY 27. From FY 28 to FY 2, the percentage stayed mostly level at 2.7 percent. In 27, one conviction charge was coded in the repealed identity theft statute. Table 4c. Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges Leading to Non-Identity Theft Related Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges Conviction (includes charges affirmed in appellate court) 2.7% 5.5% % % * Non-identity theft related disposition charges include the following: Arizona Revised Statutes 3-2, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-238, 3-23, 3-23, 3-236, 3-247, 3-347, and Only a number of all aggravated identity theft arrest charges led to non-identity theft related disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent % 3

18 Approximately 6. percent of all aggravated identity theft arrest charges with disposition information led to a conviction for a non-identity theft related offense. The total number of convictions increased from 2 in FY 26 to 28 in FY 2, and the percentage of aggravated identity theft arrest charges leading to a non-identity theft related conviction increased from.7 percent to 4.7 percent over the same period (Table 4c). The variety of non-identity theft related conviction charges are noted just below Table 4c. Identity Trafficking Arrests and Subsequent Disposition Data The following section turns the attention to arrests and arrest charges for identity trafficking (A.R.S. 3-2 offenses). Again, the disposition tables provide findings separated by each disposition charge. During the same time that A.R.S was introduced, the identity trafficking statute, A.R.S. 3-2, was enacted into law. The total number of arrests involving an identity trafficking charge rose from 54 in FY 26 to 24 in FY 2, a 3 percent increase over the five-year period (Table 5). The total number of identity trafficking arrest charges also increased by 45 percent from 69 in FY 26 to 245 in FY 2. The total number of identity trafficking arrest charges missing subsequent disposition information fluctuated from FY 26 to FY 2. After rising from 4 to 88 charges missing disposition information from FY 26 to FY 27, the total dropped back down to 37 in FY 28 before increasing again to charges missing disposition information in FY 2. The percentage of all identity trafficking arrest charges missing disposition information ranged from 6. percent in FY 27 to 6.8 percent in FY 29. In FY 2, 45.3 percent of charges were missing disposition information. The increase in the percentage of arrest charges missing disposition information from FY 29 to FY 2 is likely due to the short turnaround time afforded to prosecutors and courts to process and enter case information by January 2 compared to the other fiscal years. Table 5. Identity Trafficking Arrest and Arrest Charges Data in ACCH FY Arrests including Identity Trafficking Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges With No Final Disposition Data in the ACCH Percentage of Aggravated Identity Theft Arrest Charges With No Final Disposition Data in the ACCH % 6.% 9.9% 6.8% 45.3% Of the identity trafficking arrest charges with disposition information from FY 26 to FY 2, 95.2 percent of the charges resulted in the same disposition charge for identity trafficking. The number of identity trafficking arrest charges resulting in the same charge at case disposition that were dismissed by the court was 55 in both FY 26 and FY 2, despite ranging from a low of 25 in FY 27 to a high of 87 in FY 29 (Table 6a). The percentage of identity 4

19 trafficking arrest charges resulting in court dismissal for identity trafficking fell from 32.5 percent in FY 26 to 22.4 percent in FY 2. Identity trafficking arrest charges not filed declined from 35 in FY 26 to 2 in FY 2, a drop from 2.7 percent of all identity trafficking arrest charges to.8 percent over the time period examined. A significant number of charges were also not referred by law enforcement to the prosecution during FY 28 and FY 29. Only one plea to another charge took place during the time period examined (FY 28) for identity trafficking arrest charges leading to the same disposition charge. Identity trafficking convictions, on the other hand, rose in both total and percentage of identity trafficking arrest charges (Table 6a). Identity trafficking arrest charges leading to identity trafficking convictions increased from 34 in FY 26 to 64 in FY 2, an 88.2 percent increase. The percentage of identity trafficking arrest charges leading to an identity trafficking conviction also increased from 2. percent in FY 26 to 26. percent in FY 2. Table 6a. Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Trafficking Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Dismissed by the Court Not Filed for Prosecution Not Referred to Prosecutor Plea to Other Charges % %.6% Conviction (includes one charge affirmed in appellate court) 34 2.% % 3 9.% 4 9.7% % 9 4.8% %.5% % % 9 6.7% % % * A number of identity trafficking arrest charges led to other disposition charges or were missing disposition information. Thus, the percentages in Table 6a do not make up percent of the total number of identity trafficking arrest charges % 2.8% % Over the five-year period, 2.3 percent of identity trafficking arrest charges with subsequent disposition information resulted in identity theft disposition convictions. The total number of convictions increased from one in FY 26 to five in FY 2, and the percentage of all identity trafficking arrest charges leading to identity theft convictions increased from.6 percent to 2. percent over this same period (Table 6b). 5

20 Table 6b. Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Theft Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Conviction.6% 3 2.% 6 3.2%.4% * Only a small number of identity trafficking arrest charges led to identity theft disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent. 5 2.% When looking at identity trafficking arrest charges with available disposition information from FY26 to FY 2, the percentage of these charges that resulted in a conviction for a nonidentity theft offense was 2.6 percent. The total number of identity trafficking arrest charges leading to a non-identity theft conviction increased from one in FY 26 to eight in FY 2 (Table 6c). The percentage of identity trafficking arrest charges leading to a non-identity theft related conviction grew from.6 percent to 3.3 percent over the same five-year period. Table 6c. Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Leading to Non-Identity Theft Related Disposition Charges* in the ACCH by Disposition Result, FY 26-2 * Non-identity theft related disposition charges include the following: Arizona Revised Statutes 3-2, 3-82, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-22, 3-23, 3-236, 3-28, and Only a small number of identity trafficking arrest charges led to non-identity theft related disposition charges, which explains why the percentages do not equal percent. All non-identity theft related disposition charges resulting from identity trafficking arrest charges are listed in the footnote of Table 6c. Other Arrest Charges Leading to Identity Theft-Related Dispositions Identity Trafficking Arrest Charges Dismissed by the Court Conviction.6%.6%.7% 4 2.2% 3.% 8 3.3% In this section, information on arrest charges for non-identity theft related offenses that contain subsequent disposition data for an identity theft-related charge is summarized (Table 7a). The disposition tables are divided by each identity theft-related offense type (i.e., identity theft, aggravated identity theft, or identity trafficking) in the same manner as the other previous sections. The total number of non-identity theft related arrest charges leading to an identity theft disposition charge (specifically A.R.S and A.R.S ) increased from three in FY 2 to 28 in FY 2, an increase of 833 percent over this period (Table 7a). A total of 8 charges resulted in a court dismissal between FY 22 and FY 28, and only a handful of 6